Yeh Nice One Martin .......... Not

nickmack

krisskross wrote:

All this talk about HAVING to have a bank account to have wages and/benefit paid into is nonsense.Why not have a savings account to receive your money? No cheque book, no cards except one to remove your money from the bank. I know several people who are rubbish with money who use this method. Does mean you have to use cash for everything, but that is no bad thing, when it runs out no more can be spent so no debt.

Nice idea, but not realistic in todays society. It must be at best inconvenient.

Rightly or wrongly, most utilities companies insist on payment by Direct Debit or you incur an extra fee. How many savings accounts allow Direct Debits to be taken?

Electronic payments are easier for everyone in most cases, a cash society is in my opinion rightly a thing of the past.

krisskross

nickmack wrote:

Nice idea, but not realistic in todays society. It must be at best inconvenient.
.

I agree it must be inconvenient, my friend does complain about it but he sees it as a better solution than running up debts. He knows he will spend money he hasn't got if he is given the opportunity.

tiamai_d

Can I just say that if you have a habit of 'forgetting' when a DD ect come out, why not have two accounts? After doing this for years, hence the charges, we now have 2 accounts. One receives the wages, the same day (almost the second the wages go in) a standing order moves money to cover ALL the direct debits, into the second account. We know the second account gets enough to pay the DD's so we never take money from it, and we know that what is left in the first account is what we have for that week or month. Plus you can relax knowing that the morgage, car insurance, council tax, electric, gas, phone everything but food shopping and petrol are taken care of.

plus put in a little extra for emergencies if your realy smart!

Works for us, havent had a charge in well over a year!

angierey

krisskross wrote:

I agree it must be inconvenient, my friend does complain about it but he sees it as a better solution than running up debts. He knows he will spend money he hasn't got if he is given the opportunity.

I dont see an extra £12 - £20 per month in order to pay bills as an inconvenience, it is a case of £12 - £20 of money spent unneccessarily, that could be put towards something else, food, school uniforms, shoes or clothes for your kids.

I had a calls only bill previously of £3.77 why should I pay an extra £4.00 to pay it in cash when I worked hard to keep the bill so low?

chrissyfp1

Al_Mac wrote:

He's saying, should the bank refuse your card whilst shopping for food, the bank will then be accused of starving children. However if the bank lets the payment through, the bank will then be blamed for allowing you to go into debt and be charged.

What ever they do is wrong.

A lot of the time people ARE under the impression that their card will be refused due to insufficient funds. Nobody is going to accuse the bank of starving the child because the person didn't have enough money in her acc to pay, neither would anybody say that it was the supermarkets fault for the cost of their goods. But a bank that willingly lets you get into debt by allowing that card payment through and then charges you £30 for that on top of the interest that it's already goin to make from the overdraft amount, they have to accept that if they allow this to happen in order to profit from it then they should expect some blame for the child thats also starving nxt month. Do you know to the penny whats in ur acc, all the time? Say if you know you've got £125.??, your shopping comes to £125.33. You hand over your debit card thinkin about what your going to put back if your card is declined. Your card is accepted, your nxt thought is going to be 'oh thats good that i had more than £125.33, i didn't know what to put back'. You get home unpack your shopping, log onto internet banking to see how many pennies you have left to find that they gave you pennies that weren't yours, and that they are now going to charge you £30 for it. That is wrong! They should just decline the card. People do not realise that their card will be accepted if there are insufficient funds. The cashpoint doesn't give you £10 when you haven't got it in your account. No one shouts at the bank for that (unless their unlawful bank charges are the reason there is no money in there!)

nearlyrich

I think people are mixing up two diffferent things here, bank charges that are unfair are fair game to be claimed back ( and yes I am someone who has nothing to claim back because I haven't incurred any charges myself in 6 years). On the other hand banks starting to charge a fee for everyday banking, well we will see, I bank with First Direct, I have a credit card with them, I haven't actually used it to be honest because it's not as good as some of my other cards that offer cashback or whatever, but it entitles me to keep my account free of feees.

I don't think people who have been royally screwed by the banks for silly charges over the last six years are to blame for the idea of charging a fee.
I have no problem telling everyone I know who has been charged to claim back what they can, I have helped a few of my friends already to get back what's rightfully theirs.

To anyone who doesn't agree with people claiming back charges I say be glad that you are not in that position for whatever reason.

oldwiring

Bad_Boo wrote:

I am willing to pay the cost, though not at £35.00 a time!!!

I bet there are some unlike you who do not think they should pay any costs. Thy are the ones I detest.

Al_Mac

chrissyfp1 wrote:

A lot of the time people ARE under the impression that their card will be refused due to insufficient funds.

Very true. But in reality not always the case, as the banks do allow an invisible limit.

chrissyfp1 wrote:

Nobody is going to accuse the bank of starving the child because the person didn't have enough money in her acc to pay

Do you read the papers?, they will

chrissyfp1 wrote:

They should just decline the card.

And no one will make a fuss about that?

If they don't pay it will be wrong, if the do pay it will be wrong. To someone somewhere.

angierey

thats right Chrissyfp1. Why give you the odds then charge you for it when if you had wanted them to do this you would have agreed this with the bank previously. Isn't that what an overdraft is?????

Al_Mac

angierey wrote:

thats right Chrissyfp1. Why give you the odds then charge you for it when if you had wanted them to do this you would have agreed this with the bank previously. Isn't that what an overdraft is?????

It's last thing at night, the only shop is about to shut, your children are starving, should the bank refuse your card?

Your going to say yes, if it was a real situation, I bet you'd be annoyed.